Sorry this is really late! I have been busy and kind of forgot but I’m still going to say some things

I think the issue both of these essays fundamentally try to solve or at least explore is the inability of a single word to describe ALL processes of cultural interaction- regardless of context- and I don’t think that can be done. I found Ortiz’ writing to be lovely for the most part he takes special care to detail the trauma and shock and suppression experienced by the native people of what is now Cuba and the African slaves uprooted to there. However, I think his advocation for the sufferings of different groups of people was ultimately futile. he basically just explains how vastly different the experiences of groups of people in Cuba are and why acculturation cannot encompass all of them and then replaced one catch all term with another. It is arguably better or “more attractive” like we discussed in class but is there a real solution or way to improve our specificity that we won’t disregard a history of dominance and imposition so vulgarly?

In his critique of Ortiz’ writing Millington explains why implementing an secondary term to describe the experiences of subaltern groups (victims of violence & oppression) vs. the experiences of those who are uprooted from an original culture in hope of seeking something better (and not to escape violence or oppression.) Not to mention, it cannot take into account the effects of the experience of the individual and the context which surrounds their transition from one cultural experience to another. He says:

“There has been some emphasis in recent discussions of transculturation on interaction, but I think that we need to be clear about what we take that term to mean, because interaction may not imply equality and mutuality. Influences may operate back and forth between cultures but be asymmetrical in quantity and quality, be highly imbalanced and still take place with well oiled efficiency. Above all, therefore, and recalling elements in Ortiz, we need to try to understand how these processes affect people’s lives and the social relations in which they live.” (267)

To conclude: the specific experience of the individual (on whichever side of the power structure they may lie) is transformed and continually influenced by forces of cultural “interaction” yes, but what we should focus on attempting to understand and describe is the forces of influence which have shaped and continue to shape their experience on a more individual level. Instead we tend to want to group people together and use words which can describe our “Globalized” world, but maybe in this instance that may be incredibly difficult. There are definitely patterns and similarities one can find in all groups of people and their daily lives but I think the urge to create one, or even 2, 3, terms to describe the relationships between cultures and on a micro level, people, is impossible but we will definitely keep trying, it’s what we do. What do you think?